Two separate High Court challenges have been brought over redevelopment works at the landmark Ormond Hotel building along Dublin’s north quays.
The occupiers/owners of near or neighbouring properties claim the developer, Monteco Holdings, had failed to comply with pre-construction requirements before the work began earlier this month.
The claims are denied.
The Ormond, prior to a previous complete redevelopment in 1906, featured in an entire chapter of James Joyce's Ulysses. It has been closed for a number of years.
Monteco obtained planning permission from An Bord Pleanála last year to completely demolish the existing four-storey over basement structure, which had 62 bedrooms, with a part five-storey and four-storey 121 bedroom hotel.
The site occupies numbers 7-13 on Ormond Quay Upper and includes a protected structure at number 12. It adjoins number six, a national monument which dates to the 17th century.
The legal challenges were taken by Bagots Hutton restaurant, which occupies number six, and by Michael Smith, owner/occupier of number five.
On Monday, Mr Justice Seamus Noonan adjourned the case for two weeks after lawyers for the challengers and for Monteco said they would need time to exchange affidavits.
Urgency
Michael Howard SC, for Monteco, asked for an early hearing date as there was an urgency to the matter for what was a significant redevelopment. The works were continuing in the meantime, he said.
Jarlath Fitzsimons SC, for Mr Smith, asked that the Monteco affidavits be put in as soon as possible because his planning expert would be out of Dublin after Wednesday.
Mr Justice Noonan said if all the affidavits were exchanged in good time he would try to ensure the case gets on as soon as possible.
Urban Entertainments Ltd, which trades as Bagots Hutton, is bringing nuisance and trespass proceedings claiming the demolition works are causing a dust nuisance.
The restaurant, and Mr Smith, also seek orders under the Planning and Development Act requiring Monteco to refrain from continuing allegedly unauthorised works at the site because of an alleged failure to comply with a condition of the permission.
This required that, before work began, Monteco had to submit to the planning authority detailed proposals for the protection of structures adjacent to the site and had not done so, it is alleged.
